`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` CASE NO. IPR2022-00413
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` -vs-
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`--------------------------------------------
`
` HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` REMOTE TESTIMONY OF GERALD W. SMITH
`
` November 14, 2022 - 9:30 A.M. EST
`
`Reported by:
`
`S. Arielle Santos
`
`Job No. 6030
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 001
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 2
`
` NOVEMBER 14, 2022
`
` 9:30 A.M. EST
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION of GERALD W. SMITH,
`
`before S. Arielle Santos, Certified Court
`
`Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter and Notary
`
`Public.
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5 6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 002
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES:
`
`Page 3
`
`COUNSEL FOR APPLE:
`
`BY - PAUL HART, ESQ.
`
`ERISE IP, PA
`
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard, Suite 200
`
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`
` paul.hart@eriseIP.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR RFCYBER:
`
`BY - VINCENT RUBINO, ESQ.
`
`FABRICANT LLP
`
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South
`
`Rye, NY 10580
`
` vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 003
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
` INDEX
`
`Page 4
`
` GERALD SMITH 5
`
` MR. RUBINO 5
`
` EXHIBITS REFERENCED - PREVIOUSLY MARKED
`
` Exhibit 1001 55
`
` Exhibit 1003 57
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 004
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 5
`
`GERALD SMITH, Testifies under penalty of
`
`perjury as follows:
`
` THE WITNESS: I do.
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Good morning.
`
` Can you please state your full
`
`name for the record?
`
` A My mute takes a little bit of
`
`time. Can you hear me okay?
`
` Gerald William Smith.
`
` Q Mr. Smith, for whom do you
`
`currently work?
`
` A I work in actually two places:
`
`ID Technology Partners, which is where
`
`this work was done through back in 2020,
`
`2021, and I also have my own entity
`
`called Generic Smart Cards LLC.
`
` Q And so "this work," what do you
`
`mean by "this work"?
`
` A What I mean by that is what I
`
`currently do to earn a living, which is I
`
`am a smart card professional, primarily
`
`consulting at my age now to various
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 005
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`organizations like Homeland Security and
`
`other agencies, as well as building
`
`things like diagnostic gear and stuff on
`
`a one-off basis.
`
` Q Are you familiar with something
`
`called mobile payments, generally, the
`
`concept?
`
` A I am familiar with mobile. I am
`
`familiar with payments. And payments
`
`over mobile devices, if that's what is
`
`your definition of mobile payment.
`
` Q So have you heard of a product
`
`called Samsung Pay, for example?
`
` A If I can get the mute button to
`
`work -- I am familiar with Samsung Pay
`
`and other names in front pay or
`
`equivalence, yes.
`
` Q So you'd also be familiar with
`
`Google Pay, right?
`
` A Yes, I am familiar with Google
`
`Pay, the name at least, yes, and its
`
`general aspects.
`
` Q So are you familiar more than at
`
`a general level, are you familiar with
`
`the technical workings of Samsung Pay?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 006
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A The particulars of things like
`
`Samsung Pay or Google Pay, even others, I
`
`see through the eyes of payments because
`
`I sit on various standards boards, not to
`
`the level I did in the period, but I
`
`would see it through things like EMVCo or
`
`some of the European Telecom Standards
`
`Entity Standards, ISO 8583 traffic. I
`
`see it through that kind of nuts and
`
`bolts level versus a user level.
`
` I don't believe -- actually, I
`
`know I don't use any of those myself. I
`
`am still -- I am still a card-based guy
`
`in the end of the day. But I think -- I
`
`have some awareness of the concept.
`
` Q Are you aware of any of the
`
`security issues that have been prevalent
`
`with Samsung Pay and Google Pay?
`
` MR. HART: Objection.
`
` Relevance.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q You can answer if you know, sir.
`
` A I do not know. I don't --
`
`since -- I am in the identity space now
`
`more than payments, I don't follow
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 007
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`such -- such issues. So no, I am not
`
`familiar with specifics on any of these
`
`payment mechanisms.
`
` Q But you generally are aware that
`
`there have been security issues in the
`
`media, in news articles about Samsung Pay
`
`and Google Pay, right?
`
` MR. HART: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I do not recall
`
` if I saw those or I put them to
`
` memory. I would say in my
`
` recollection, no, I have not
`
` followed that at all because it's
`
` not relevant to what I do in the
`
` identity space.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Are you aware of any
`
`transmission of credit card information
`
`as plain text over the internet by Google
`
`Pay or Samsung Pay leading to security
`
`issues?
`
` MR. HART: Objection,
`
` relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I am not.
`
` Again, I am not familiar with the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 008
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` specific mechanisms of those
`
` offerings.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Who are you working for in this
`
`case, sir?
`
` A In this particular case? If you
`
`could rephrase the question so I
`
`understand what you mean who I am working
`
`for.
`
` Q I would like to know. I don't
`
`know how to make it more specific.
`
` Who are you working for -- Erise
`
`IP, the court reporter, me?
`
` Who are you working for?
`
` A Well, in this particular
`
`instance, I am representing -- I support
`
`the Erise IP team.
`
` Q Is there a party -- specific
`
`party you are working for?
`
` A I work for Erise IP, which my
`
`understanding -- and I am not a lawyer, I
`
`think I stated that in the declaration --
`
`I thought represented Apple in this
`
`particular case.
`
` Q Do you also work for Samsung?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 009
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A I have not -- no, I do not work
`
`for Samsung. As I stated previously, I
`
`work for ID Technology Partners and some
`
`additional work at Generic Smart Cards
`
`LLC. I don't deal with the West Coast
`
`firms, no. No, not at this time.
`
` Q Didn't you submit a declaration
`
`on behalf of Samsung in an IPR proceeding
`
`earlier last year?
`
` A Well, to clarify, I thought you
`
`meant at this moment. I was retained as
`
`an expert witness through a different
`
`legal team, I think it was GT Law to
`
`represent Samsung, yes. I didn't
`
`consider that -- I believe the terms of
`
`my contract was I was not or will ever be
`
`an employee of Samsung. That's my
`
`understanding. And when that resolved
`
`itself however it resolved itself, I am
`
`no longer associated with that.
`
` So it was only in this type of
`
`domain that I was associated with
`
`Samsung.
`
` Q So if I say "this case," are you
`
`familiar with the IPR proceedings
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 010
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`IPR2022-412 and 413?
`
` A I would have to see the actual
`
`work to understand if I am familiar with
`
`that, whether that is the Apple stuff
`
`or -- sounds like it's newer. I think
`
`all my stuff is 2021 stuff under Samsung.
`
`That is the most I know of particular
`
`numbers without seeing the document.
`
` Q So you submitted two
`
`declarations, one in each of the
`
`proceedings we are here to talk about
`
`today, right?
`
` Is that right, sir?
`
` A That's correct. One for the
`
`'787 and one for the '009, which I think
`
`start out saying Samsung.
`
` Q And you submitted those
`
`declarations while you were doing work
`
`for Samsung in 2021, right?
`
` A That work started in 2020 and I
`
`believe, yeah, they were submitted
`
`sometime mid-2021. I would have to see
`
`the dates but that was for through GT Law
`
`to Samsung, yes, sir.
`
` Q And then sometime later you
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 011
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`started working with Apple and submitted
`
`what is essentially the identical
`
`declaration in the Apple proceedings,
`
`right?
`
` A I don't know the procedural
`
`aspects of this but the same declaration
`
`applies, is my understanding. So that is
`
`the best I can answer that particular
`
`question.
`
` Q So you didn't change any
`
`positions between the Samsung proceeding
`
`and the Apple proceeding, right?
`
` It's all the same positions you
`
`have taken?
`
` A As of today, even my opinion
`
`remains the same on what I disclosed in
`
`those declarations.
`
` Q When you were working for
`
`Samsung, you were actually representing
`
`or you submitted declarations for four
`
`proceedings, right?
`
` A As I recall -- again, this is
`
`two years ago, talking about a time
`
`period that's almost 20 years now, well,
`
`15-plus -- I do remember creating or
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 012
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`crafting four different declarations,
`
`although I think there were more IP than
`
`that at the time. But that sounds
`
`correct that there were four, in fact.
`
` Q I am going to say some patent
`
`numbers here.
`
` Are you familiar with the '218
`
`patent?
`
` A I am familiar with the '218
`
`patent and I believe I crafted a
`
`declaration for that particular patent.
`
` Q And you're also familiar with
`
`the '855 patent as well, right?
`
` A I believe I call that out
`
`specifically in the -- it's like the
`
`'787. But, yes, I am familiar with an
`
`'855 declaration as well.
`
` Q And you understand that we are
`
`here today because the PTAB, P-T-A-B has
`
`instituted IPR proceedings for the '009
`
`and '787 patents, right?
`
` A That is my understanding, that
`
`that was -- what you people call a
`
`decision, okay, from a -- I think it is a
`
`three judge panel, if I understand the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 013
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`process, I am not a lawyer.
`
` So yes, we are here because we
`
`are moving forward on '009 and the '787,
`
`that's my understanding.
`
` Q And you understand that there's
`
`a decision called an institution decision
`
`in those proceedings where the patent
`
`office, the PTAB, discusses the merits of
`
`the proceeding, right?
`
` A I have -- I have -- I understand
`
`what a decision document is which I think
`
`they discuss whether something should
`
`move forward or not, that is the best I
`
`can really ferret that out as a
`
`technologist.
`
` Q Have you read them?
`
` A I have read the decision
`
`documents for both the '787 and the '009,
`
`yes, sir.
`
` Q And you're also aware the patent
`
`office declined to proceed in the
`
`proceedings where you submitted a
`
`declaration for the '218 and the '855
`
`patents, right?
`
` A Under Samsung, yes, the decision
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 014
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`from the PTAB was not to institute trial
`
`on either of those matters. And that
`
`was -- as far as I was concerned, that's
`
`-- you know, I had done my job and moved
`
`on.
`
` Q Did you read the decisions in
`
`those cases?
`
` A Yes, I read both decisions
`
`because it's -- these type of -- this
`
`type of work is always, if nothing else,
`
`an educational moment for me of should I
`
`continue to go down this line of work, I
`
`want to try to improve my prose, if
`
`nothing else.
`
` But, yes, I did receive -- I
`
`did -- maybe I didn't fully understand
`
`them, but I did read those decisions.
`
` Q And so I want to make sure I
`
`understand the timing right.
`
` You submitted declarations on
`
`behalf of Samsung for the '218, '855,
`
`'787 and '009 patents sometime in the
`
`2020-2021 timeframe, right?
`
` A The work was done starting in --
`
`I mean, I got involved in late 2020, and
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 015
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`I remember -- my recollection is that all
`
`those filings were over the summer, maybe
`
`slightly into the fall of 2021 for
`
`Samsung.
`
` Q And so you put declarations
`
`together.
`
` They were ultimately submitted
`
`sometime in the fall of 2021 for Samsung
`
`for all four patents, right?
`
` A That's my recollection, yeah,
`
`there were four things submitted. Again,
`
`most of that was other machinery tourney
`
`with respect to the PTAB and all that.
`
`But I remember doing work for four
`
`declarations, and my understanding is
`
`they were all submitted, yes.
`
` Q And then sometime in early -- or
`
`sometime in late 2021, early 2022, you
`
`became aware that the patent office
`
`denied institution, declined to proceed
`
`with the proceedings on the '218 and the
`
`'855 patent, right?
`
` A I was informed and I did read,
`
`as I said earlier, in I think it was
`
`early 2022, that two, the '787, '009,
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 016
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`there was -- to proceed and institute to
`
`trial, and the '218 and the '855 were
`
`declined by the PTAB.
`
` That's -- that's my recollection
`
`of how things more or less ended at that
`
`point with my work with Samsung based on
`
`subsequent legal maneuverings and all
`
`that.
`
` Q Are you aware one way or the
`
`other whether Samsung took a license to
`
`the patents?
`
` A I --
`
` (Simultaneous Crosstalk.)
`
` MR. HART: Objection.
`
` Relevance.
`
` Go ahead, Gerry.
`
` THE WITNESS: Sorry, I didn't
`
` mean to cut you off their, Paul.
`
` No, I never -- in the work I
`
` have done so far, depending
`
` whoever I am representing, I never
`
` know the outcome nor do I really
`
` want to know the outcome, it's
`
` none of my business, really.
`
` But no, I have no idea what
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 017
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` happened when things -- what
`
` happened after the PTAB decisions.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Would it surprise you to learn
`
`that Samsung took a license to the
`
`RFCyber patents?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Surprise might
`
` be too strong a word. Again, I
`
` wasn't privy to what actually
`
` happened other than my contract
`
` terminated at that point because
`
` my services were no longer needed.
`
` I am not surprised because
`
` that is -- to me, that's one
`
` possible outcome. You take a
`
` license or you agree on an amount
`
` from an award chest and you move
`
` on, okay, from at least my prior
`
` life experience in these areas.
`
` But surprise is -- I think might
`
` be a little too strong a word.
`
` But I wasn't aware that they took
`
` a license. That much is true.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 018
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So based on the fact that you
`
`rendered opinions that you believe all
`
`these patents are invalid, would it
`
`surprise you at all to learn that Samsung
`
`paid for a license to these patents?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would repeat
`
` the same response, that it's
`
` just -- to me, these things are
`
` business decisions on the
`
` commercial side sometimes -- in my
`
` opinion, in my experience.
`
` So same basic response as
`
` before; surprise is a strong word,
`
` but it's -- it's one possible
`
` outcome. That is the most I can
`
` say there.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Do you think Samsung would have
`
`paid for invalid patents -- a license to
`
`invalid patents?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, same
`
` response as before. I considered
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 019
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` it a business decision really at
`
` that point, and nothing more than
`
` that. And validity didn't really
`
` play into that. Just a business
`
` decision of do you keep going, at
`
` what cost, versus you settle.
`
` It's just that within this
`
` case, you're telling me a
`
` license -- which I cannot confirm
`
` by the way, maybe there is a way
`
` to confirm it, but I don't know
`
` how to do that.
`
` So same basic theme that
`
` surprise is a strong word but the
`
` merits of invalidity or not,
`
` debate was stopped really at that
`
` point at Samsung.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Would it surprise you to learn
`
`that Samsung paid $5 million for a
`
`license to these patents?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I never know
`
` dollar amounts nor are they
`
` relevant to my contributions to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 020
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` that particular effort.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Based on your understanding from
`
`your time in the industry and your
`
`professional career, don't you think
`
`paying $5 million for invalid patents
`
`would be a lot of money if those patents
`
`were invalid?
`
` MR. HART: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, I
`
` restate about projections of
`
` what's it take to get to the end,
`
` what is the certainty it's going
`
` to get to the end, especially with
`
` some PTAB decisions versus
`
` basically cut losses in the matter
`
` and move on. To me, it's a
`
` business decision.
`
` It hasn't -- again, in my
`
` mind has nothing to do with the
`
` invalidity, especially when you
`
` look at all the arguments and
`
` hundreds and hundreds of pages
`
` that I know I performed under
`
` Samsung, okay, with respect to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 021
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` those four matters.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q I will ask you something that is
`
`a little outlandish here then.
`
` Let's say you certainly do agree
`
`that if someone paid close to $30 million
`
`for a license to these patents, that, you
`
`know, they wouldn't be paying $30 million
`
`for license to invalid patents -- we will
`
`get back to the $5 million range in a
`
`second -- but let me rephrase that.
`
`Okay?
`
` A Please.
`
` Q So you told me what you think
`
`about the $5 million range but I want to
`
`ask you about something that is a little
`
`more outlandish.
`
` So let's say someone paid
`
`$30 million for a license to these
`
`patents.
`
` You wouldn't think someone would
`
`be paying $30 million for a license to
`
`invalid patents, right?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 022
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, first,
`
` that is a hypothetical and I --
`
` with all due respect, I don't do
`
` hypotheticals. But I reaffirm
`
` where my head is on this and that
`
` is if it's a $3 trillion market,
`
` for example, if you're -- in your
`
` hypothetical $30 million might be
`
` a very reasonable way out in this,
`
` without considering invalidity. I
`
` think that is the point I want to
`
` make is if somebody pays for
`
` something, it doesn't transfer, in
`
` my mind, whether the patent is
`
` valid or not.
`
` Just because, again, I am not
`
` a lawyer. But that's my
`
` understanding, it's strictly in
`
` the realm of a business decision,
`
` the entity, the corporation.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q Have you ever rendered an
`
`opinion that a patent is valid?
`
` A I have done a few of these.
`
`That's a difficult question for me
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 023
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`because I did some work 2000 -- I want to
`
`say 2009 -- on a smart card matter, where
`
`I believe I did represent the plaintiff
`
`as an expert witness. I -- that never
`
`got to a declaration phase.
`
` So I think I have answered my
`
`own question. No, I don't think I am on
`
`the record for arguing that no, indeed, a
`
`patent is invalid. I have -- I don't
`
`think there's anything on the record in
`
`that regard.
`
` Q So to confirm, you've only ever
`
`submitted declarations or given sworn
`
`testimony proceedings arguing that
`
`patents are invalid.
`
` You have never argued in a
`
`declaration or in a sworn proceeding that
`
`a patent is valid, correct?
`
` A That is my recollection, yes.
`
` Q Other than the proceedings
`
`related to the Samsung RFCyber case and
`
`the Apple RFCyber case, how many other
`
`IPR proceedings have you been involved
`
`in?
`
` A This may not be an accurate
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 024
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`number because one of my clients over the
`
`years has been the Department of Justice,
`
`their IP division.
`
` I believe there's at least
`
`one -- two, in fact, I have done in the
`
`past. I don't remember the exact merits
`
`of that case. I did not prepare for that
`
`today. But I would say at least two
`
`where -- not counting this case, two
`
`additional, okay.
`
` And again, I think both of
`
`those -- three, actually, because there
`
`is one also that I think I did write a
`
`declaration for -- for the SEC. I was
`
`retained as an expert witness there on a
`
`particular smart card matter as well.
`
` So I would say in the universe
`
`of these kind of things, not counting
`
`Samsung or this proceeding, I would say
`
`three additional.
`
` Q Now, back to the Samsung
`
`institution decisions we discussed.
`
` After you read the decisions
`
`denying institution for the '218 and '855
`
`patents where the patent office decided
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 025
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`not to proceed based on your
`
`declarations, after reviewing those
`
`decisions, you didn't make any changes to
`
`any declaration in the Apple proceedings,
`
`right?
`
` MR. HART: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can only talk
`
` to the '787 and '009. But the
`
` opinions I rendered there, even in
`
` consideration of the two that were
`
` not moved forward, which I read it
`
` carefully enough to know it was a
`
` different board, different set of
`
` people, that I apparently did
`
` not -- I was not persuasive on my
`
` side I guess.
`
` No, my opinions stay the way
`
` they are and did not impact my
`
` '787 or '009 hundreds of pages of
`
` disclosure. No, I am sticking to
`
` my guns on that, because it's what
`
` I believe and -- for the time
`
` period, and there was -- in my
`
` opinion, there's no reason to
`
` change any opinions in that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 026
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` regard.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So in other words, if the patent
`
`office said certain things in the
`
`institution decisions denying institution
`
`for the '218 and '855 patents, you are
`
`not changing any of your opinions with
`
`regard to the '787 and '009 patents,
`
`right?
`
` You think you have said enough;
`
`you don't need to add anything to them;
`
`they stand on their own.
`
` Is that your testimony?
`
` A That's effectively my testimony,
`
`yes. Because -- and I think it is out of
`
`scope to bring in my own -- how I am
`
`educated on the '218 and '855 in that
`
`regard. So I am not going to talk about
`
`that.
`
` But there's nothing that changes
`
`what I know was what was happening and my
`
`best knowledge and experience there's no
`
`need for me to make any changes, I
`
`believe, in either the '787 or the '009.
`
` Q Are you familiar with the term
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 027
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`"secure element"?
`
` A I would need you to clarify what
`
`you mean by that term. I come out of the
`
`specifications and standards and
`
`business, so I would -- I am a little
`
`confused on context.
`
` Do you mean with respect to the
`
`'009 patent?
`
` Q Let's talk about the term secure
`
`element with regard to any of the RFCyber
`
`patents.
`
` You are familiar with the term
`
`in the context of the patents, right?
`
` A I am familiar with the term as
`
`used in the '009, because that's top of
`
`my head right now, which stipulates in
`
`the specifications -- it's probably the
`
`wrong wording in the legal context -- but
`
`it says in the specifications, somewhere
`
`in column 6, I believe, I could be off
`
`there, I don't have, I would have to go
`
`look precisely -- that a secure element
`
`may be in the form of a smart card, which
`
`that's what I use, then, to engage my
`
`expertise for the balance of at least the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 028
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`'009 in that regard.
`
` And I do not recall the use of
`
`secure element. It may be there, okay,
`
`in the '787 or I would have to go and
`
`look for it. But the '009 certainly
`
`brings in smart cards as a definition.
`
` Q You are aware that in the '218
`
`and '855 proceedings, the proceedings
`
`related to those two patents, that the
`
`patent office declined to proceed because
`
`the prior art that you cited to in those
`
`proceedings, they didn't believe it
`
`disclosed a secure element, right?
`
` MR. HART: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, I did
`
` not really prepare for the '218
`
` and '855 today in scope for me
`
` today, I'm a very big guy on scope
`
` because I am trapped by it all the
`
` time in some of my work.
`
` I don't remember exactly the
`
` detail on those arguments. What I
`
` do remember is in the '009, a
`
` secure element can come in the
`
` form of a smart card. And that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 029
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` was sufficient in my technical
`
` mind to proceed along the
`
` grounds -- the lines that I did,
`
` and ultimately my '009
`
` declaration.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q I am only asking about what the
`
`board said when it declined to institute.
`
`You said you looked at those decisions
`
`and you learned from them.
`
` I'm asking you whether you are
`
`aware that in the decisions denying
`
`institution, the board at the PTAB found
`
`that the references you cited to didn't
`
`have the secure element of the '218 and
`
`'855 patents.
`
` Do you know that or do you not
`
`know that?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I consider that
`
` out of scope for today. I just
`
` would need to go back and see that
`
` language and see how it applies --
`
` applies here.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 030
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` I am not exactly sure why
`
` you're asking that question, when
`
` it's very obvious certainly in the
`
` '009, where you define the term to
`
` be or at least a realm of that
`
` term for use which I did use,
`
` okay, in my declaration.
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So you are telling me in this
`
`proceeding, you don't plan to talk about
`
`at all what the patent office said about
`
`secure element in its decision denying
`
`institution for the '218 patent and '855
`
`patent.
`
` Is that what you are telling me?
`
` MR. HART: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can't really
`
` answer that. I can't predict the
`
` future of what I am going to say,
`
` depending on how events unfold.
`
` What I have said in the
`
` declaration is what I am sticking
`
` to, as I have said in the opening
`
` of these proceedings.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2009, IPR2022-00412
`Page 031
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`BY MR. RUBINO:
`
` Q So whateve